HSX Forum

TVStocks, MusicStocks and Life

Reply Topic List All Forums

There's a wrinkle in that supply/demand logic. You can't just churn out more doctors. It takes years and lots of money to create a doctor.

Posted by: Paul2k on Jun 30, 10:48 in response to PRodNano's post Supply will always meet demand. If this is the case, it...

I don't know the statistics of how many doctors there are currently in the US, and what the ratio is of doctors to patients, so I don't know if MontyBurnz/HarryWarden's point is valid. I think he's taken it to a bit of an extreme though, playing the devil's advocate/doomsday scenario.

What I do know is that there is a problem with getting doctors to be general practitioners instead of specialists/surgeons because they have such large school debts after finishing medical school that they have to chase the higher paying jobs to pay it all off. There is also the problem of malpractice insurance being quite difficult on doctors and the litigous nature of our country preventing some qualified, experienced doctors from being able to practice. There is a lot wrong with the healthcare system in our country. The hope is that the ACA is taking steps to fix some of those problems. It's kinda sad that it's taken this long for our government to do something useful, practical, and helpful to start the process.

Usa Supreme court Require every american citizen must Health insurance mike255 Jun 29, 15:04

Horrible. It will be done through a tax which means we'll be paying. Why should I have to pay for other people to get health insurance? {nm} MontyBurnz Jun 29, 15:28

you do now; ever been to an ER at a county hospital? {nm} daveart Jun 29, 16:11

No no no...You do not get it. If you choose not to buy insurance, the penalty is higher taxes. If you have, or buy health insurance, in BUY StarBondFund Jun 29, 17:25

Yes, my employer provides insurance. But why should people be forced to pay for something they don't use? MontyBurnz Jun 29, 19:11

needing medical attention is not something you plan for {nm} Moviesnob Jun 29, 19:15

Part of "forcing" everyone to have health insurance (or to pay a tax if they choose to forgo) is a concession to the health industry. Paul2k Jun 29, 19:27

With more people on insurance, good luck getting into see a doctor when you need to. MontyBurnz Jun 29, 20:46

Also, it is going to allow the government to outlaw any food item they want, such as further regulation of sweet items soda, candy, etc. MontyBurnz Jun 29, 22:20

Movie theatres will go out of business when the products they sell in order to stay in business are outlawed because they're not healthy {nm} MontyBurnz Jun 29, 22:24

This will not/ can not happen (and I think you know that). PRodNano Jun 30, 10:06

Supply will always meet demand. If this is the case, it will create more jobs. {nm} PRodNano Jun 30, 09:58

Also, the bill also stipulates that doctors will start getting paid on how effectively they treat their patients, not by how many they see. PRodNano Jun 30, 10:08

There's a wrinkle in that supply/demand logic. You can't just churn out more doctors. It takes years and lots of money to create a doctor. Paul2k Jun 30, 10:48

Good points Paul. However, I was more refering to allowing more students into medical schools. I believe the amount that they let in PRodNano Jun 30, 12:31

This is true. In Canada, we have a hard time getting find a general practitioner. It's easier to go to a clinic. But specialists are elchan Jun 30, 14:32

In your life time, there's a high probability that you *will* use health insurance. Most likely you will need it when you are older elchan Jun 30, 07:53

I'm not disagreeing with the verdict, but the problem is, the court decided it wasnt a tax when it agreed to hear the case Moviesnob Jun 29, 19:17

basically, the court said its not a tax for purposes of the anti-injunction act, but is a tax that congress can levy it. pretty weird {nm} Moviesnob Jun 29, 19:23

I agree with universal health care. This is what separates us from animals. The social pact. elchan Jun 30, 07:57

+1 :) {nm} Jane_Citizen Jun 30, 14:20

For those who don't know what the bill is about and don't want to read all the literature, inside is the logic: PRodNano Jun 30, 10:12

Not sure that's any better than what we have now. Actually, sounds worse. Here's why... MontyBurnz Jun 30, 10:25

Medicaid/Medicare isn't going away with the ACA, so that local aid you got should stay in place. I'm not entirely sure on the workings of Paul2k Jun 30, 10:40

I didn't have MedicAid or Medicare. What I had was called Medical Assistance (MA). I believe it's different than those you mentioned. {nm} MontyBurnz Jun 30, 11:39

It's possible that Medical Assistance is just the local/state name for Medicaid. Medicaid is the federal name, but the funds from it are Paul2k Jun 30, 12:05